The Framers started with a suggested Congressman/citizen ratio of 1:40,000.

About 100 years ago, when our population was near 95 million, Congress increased the number of reps to 435, the number we have today. At a population of 312 million, the current ratio of reps to citizens is about 1:700,000. IMHO, our House of Reps should have several thousand members, getting the ratio up to around 1:50,000.

Not only would it increase the probability of having a rep that reflected your values, it would avoid the vast majority of messy court battles over reapportionment and silly so-called voting rights. San Francisco could send a few freaks to Congress, north FL would send some good ol boys, and Houston could multiply the likes of darling Sheila Jackson Lee several times over.

Now Im not saying this is likely, for it is not. Few Congressmen would willingly give up so much power. All Im saying is my suggestion would get us closer to the Representative Republic our Framers envisioned.

Mr. RUTLIDGE urged & moved that a residence of 7 years shd. be required in the State Wherein the Member shd. be elected. An emigrant from N. England to S. C. or Georgia would know little of its affairs and could not be supposed to acquire a thorough knowledge in less time.

Mr. READ reminded him that we were now forming a Natil. Govt. and such a regulation would correspond little with the idea that we were one people.
-
Mr. Rutledge’s proposal would have disqualified many of this same Constitutional Convention’s immigrants from Connecticut who claimed to Represent the interests of “we the people” of the State of Georgia.

Mr. Read says, “State and people’s interests be damned”.

Oh, and thanks, Jacquerie!

3 posted on 08/08/2011 3:33:52 AM PDT by Repeal The 17th
(Proud to be a (small) monthly donor.)